People v. Woods

California Court of Appeal Sep 16, 1968 No. Crim. 14284Published

Before: Files

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant who fails to object to the admission of preliminary hearing testimony at trial waives the right to challenge its admissibility on appeal, even if the witness's unavailability was not established under the standards set forth in Barber v. Page.

Issues

Whether the admission of a witness's preliminary hearing transcript violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
Whether the failure to object to the admission of preliminary hearing testimony at trial precludes appellate review of that issue.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is the usual rule that if evidence is not objected to in the trial court, the defendant may not complain of it on appeal.”

“There is no reason here for departing from the rule that the admissibility of the evidence may not be reviewed in the absence of a trial court objection.”

FILES, P. J.

After a trial before the court sitting without a jury, defendant was found guilty of robbery, second degree (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 211a). He is appealing from the judgment. His notice of appeal also refers to the order denying a new trial, which is not an appealable order.

The evidence in the record is adequate to support the judgment, when tested by the standard applied in a reviewing court. The victim, Mr. Merton Buckley, was drinking in a bar on Main Street in downtown Los Angeles. When he went next door for a cup of coffee, defendant and another man who had been in the bar with him went along, though not by invitation. As Buckley left there to go to the depot, the two men walked along and “escorted” Buckley down a side street, where they removed his wristwatch and “lifted” his wallet and coins from his pocket. Buckley had not intended to walk down that side street, but he submitted through fear. Immediately afterwards Buckley reported this robbery to a police officer on foot patrol. While they were together, Buckley saw

[714]

defendant pass by and enter a bar. Defendant was arrested, handcuffed, placed in the rear seat of a police vehicle and transported to police headquarters. When the officer put on the handcuffs defendant was wearing a wristwateh. On arrival at headquarters the watch was missing. The officer asked him about it and defendant denied having had any watch. The watch, along with a card ease containing a credit card and other papers bearing the name of Merton C. Buckley, were found behind the seat of the police car in which defendant had been riding. Buckley had never been in the back seat of that police vehicle.

Defendant, testifying on his own behalf, admitted that he had been with Buckley in the bar, but denied having walked down the side street with him and denied having taken anything from him. This conflict in the evidence was conclusively resolved by the decision of the trial court.

(People

Hills,

30 Cal.2d 694, 700 [185 P.2d 11].)

Defendant contends he is entitled to a new trial because the testimony of Buckley was read from the preliminary transcript, in violation of defendant’s Sixth Amendment right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him,” as recently interpreted in

People v. Woods

AI Brief

FILES, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief